tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 8, 2019 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
major events this week, we have a bike to workday, may 9 at various locations through the say. i would like to say that anybody that plans to cycle to work, please follow the rules of the road. we have had a significant uptick in traffic collisions involving injuries and fatalities this year. we want to make sure that everybody stays safe if you plan to participate in that. today was the national day of action by uber drivers. we saw some activity here in the civic center area earlier today between the hours of 12 and 3:00 p.m. no incidents -- no disruptions and no violence, and that was intended to be a one-day event. so, things should be back to normal from this point forward. cinco de mayo after action, there were no major incidents related to cinco de mayo. we were deployed very adequately
and had no problems over the weekend related to that. community engagement, i want to give an update on the youth programs. we are really happy with the direction that our youth programs are going. for the past several years, we have had summer employment through our youth programs. this year is no exception. the mayor's office has taken the lead on this and coordinating for all city departments. happy to announce we have 730 youth that will participate in our programs this year and engage in summer employment. that's a really good thing, really good program. a good way to engage, good way for the young people of our city to get both work experience and life experience through the summer programs. some of the highlights, future grads, 50 youth, this is the eighth year of this program and these youth will be placed in tech internships with some of our local tech firms and some of the youth will also have opportunities with the architectural foundation of san
francisco. another 30 interest in law enforcement and they will working work in various areas of the san francisco police department like the permit section, department center, academy, healthy streets operations center, recruitment, and crime scene investigation. so, they usually really get a kick out of that and good experience and good opportunity for us to engage with this population. our youth community police academy is also going this summer, that will be an eight-week course, approximately 40 youth that will go through this course and it will be happening along with project pool. and it will be every thursday for eight weeks. we are leaving ten spots open for availability for any youth to apply from direct placement for opportunity for all, through the mayor's office on that. our community safety initiative,
c.s.i., we expect 50 to 75 youth to participate in that. 4 or 5 through the summer and it's a really good opportunity for youth. particularly to engage with the community. cheryl davis from the human rights commission has done an outstanding job and working with the department on this endeavor. and one thing we have seen from the program, the attitudes and the perceptions of the youth that have been involved actually improved about their perceptions of the police after they have engaged in this program. so it's a very positive endeavor. and, also some academic research tied to this with stanford university and their spark program. the last two i would like to highlight is the summer wilderness program, hiking trips through the summer, beginner to advance trips, and open to all san francisco youth. we plan to have about 220 engaged in that, and also our
youth career academy through operation genesis, about 50 youths will participate and they will be given opportunities to learn about different career paths and justice, medical field, health, fitness, and the dietary fields. also full speed with the summer programming, including cadet program, summer fishing program, flag football, football and cheer starts in august and pal. those are the highlights and proud of what our men and women are doing in terms of community engagement with the very young population of san francisco and that is a very needed, very needed programming. commissioner dejesus and i sat with the youth commission and we hope to continue for summers to come. but over 700 this summer, we are really pleased with that.
>> before i move on, any questions on the -- i'll go to the t.e.w. update and our m.o.u. update. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. chief, you mentioned the uptick in traffic collisions and some reporting on this recently that we are at record levels of pedestrian and bicycle collisions and fatalities. what -- the department's side, is there anything that you have identified as the cause of this uptick and what is the department doing in response to address it? >> well, i don't know if record level is -- it's record -- we had -- we are higher than this time last year, we were doing good the last two years. at record lows the last two years for fatalities.
we have seen an uptick in pedestrian violations of where we are experiencing many collisions involving injuries and deaths this year, pedestrian-related. so, a couple of things that we have been doing, you might have seen coverage on the local news earlier this week on some traffic safety operations that our traffic company has led. we have also had each of our district stations asked to dial in on this as well and focus. the traffic safety operations will include pedestrian operations, bicycle operations and mainly motor vehicle violation enforcement. we expect -- and three things with traffic. enforcement, there's education and engineering, and we are working on all three with the help of m.p.a. with the enforcement operations typically when we identify high collision corridor across the city we deploy there with our
motorcycle officers and again, we want to enhance that across the board with patrol and our district stations also participating in being more involved in that process, so we hope to see some better outcomes there. a big part of this is education, not everybody stopped tore violation will get a citation. the officers do have some discretion there, so some are warned. but the bottom line is we want to make sure that we -- people know that we are out there. they tend to drive better when they know we are out there and we want to make sure we turn this around, because we have started very high this year compared to the last two years. >> thank you. so update on electronic controlled weapons, or e.c.w. i mispronounced it a second ago. update on where we are. there were a number of tasks
that were in front of us after the policy went through the commission, and i'll categorize the work and give status where we are in each of these areas. and one of the tasks was to develop the infrastructure for when the devices are implemented we need an infrastructure, which includes docking stations similar to the process that we use for body worn cameras, data portals, batteries, that type of thing and we have to develop the infrastructure and prepare the infrastructure, so we have assigned a team led by commissioner pete walsh to address the issues and go through the planning stage and identify the needs, and that has been done with the infrastructure. i'll name some, captain denise
infrastructure, we have established what's needed in terms of docks, batteries, docking ports at the stations in order to support the e.c.w. with the infrastructure. we have not extended any funding on any of this yet. and the funding is still on reserve by the board of supervisors, but we have established what the needs and the costs are. as far as the use of force forms, when we implement e.c.w., they will need to be updated. we have created new forms with the proper boxes for e.c.w. at the time when it's reviewed, we will be ready to roll the forms out so we can account for the usage of e.c.w. and that will be part of the review process that will go to the review board when we finalize what that board will do. we have adopted some basic
guidelines for e.c.d. review boards -- or e.c.w., i'm sorry, and that will have to go through the work group process. it will preliminarily, a board meet once per quarter, and findings as fo policy training, tactics, supervision, trends and/or other issues based on the review of the board. subcommittee of the e.c.w. review board, called the review committee, responsible for the review of unit level investigated incidents. also the plan is that the subcommittee will convene more frequently, perhaps monthly, and report actions and recommendations for the quarter to the e.c.w. review board. in terms of the discharge,s we have preliminarily identified
two types of discharge. one being when there is no serious bodily injury or death, and the other being when there is discharge of an e.c.w. that is accompanying with serious bodily injury or death. and the purpose for doing that is to prioritize -- >> you are going a little too fast for me, i'm jumping around here. >> i'll slow down. when you talk about e.c.w. review board, a review board and then a sub committee or two committees? >> laying out what the plan is, commissioner. to give a status. i'll slow down and stop me if you -- >> monthly committee and quarterly board. >> quarterly board, will feed into the quarterly board are monthly committee reports. so the board can deliver it and discuss the issues quarterly on what the monthly committee identifies. so basically the infrastructure for the board. and again, all this is in the planning phase, but this is the
status update on where we are with this. >> you left off on two types of discharge, serious bodily injury -- g.b.i. or death. >> the overarching issue there is, we want to be able to identify and prioritize, particularly those incidents that may result in bodily injury and/or death so the board can categorize between just discharge that results in no injury and no death from the ones that are more serious. so, we plan to differentiate those by type. >> let the chief finish his report and then we'll take questions. he's going pretty slow. >> now he is. yeah. >> the last part of the process is the review process and the plan is have all e.c.w. discharge incidents subject to review through the e.c.w. review
board and the subcommittee which i just described. through the process, chief of police will receive recommendations on administrative investigations, policy tactics, training, equipment, trends, and any other matters that are identified by the board. it is expected that the serious incidents review board, which members of this commission will be a part of, that work group will eventually replace the e.c.w. review board. that is a work in process as well. as to training, two members of the san francisco police department will attend the master instructor school for e.c.w.s. the vendor will conduct a trainer, training for ten s.f.p.d. trainers and another session down the line will be held with ten additional
trainers after the initial training. observers will be invited to observe the training. as public a process as possible given the interest in the subject. so, the cadre has developed training outlines in terms of basically how the training scenarios will go, that's still a work in progress, but they are basically hashing out what the training that will actually go through the officers when you are trained on this will consist of, and that's still a work in process but are working on that, and working to actually finalize that training. and that is -- that is it. that's the summary of all the different issues that we were tasked with, again, we are very long far along in the process on each ever those issues, and in terms of the implementation, we
still have to finalize the policy that's not yet gone through meeting to confer, and the funding has to be released by the board of supervisors before we can purchase or procure the devices for the weapons. >> ok, thank you. i'm going to ask you to complete your report and then questions and comments. >> ok. next thing is just information and update on the officer-involved shooting m.o.u. this has been a topic and a question that's been asked by several of the commissioners for the last two years since i've been in office here. the process started at the end of 2016 at the recommendation of, and much public interest about having an independent investigation of officer-involved shootings, and we are talking about the actual criminal investigation to determine whether the actual
shooting, the officer-involved shooting met the criminal standard. so, after two years we, and the district attorney's office, along with the department of human resources and the meet and confer process have arrived at an agreement on m.o.u. it was signed and actually a couple weeks ago, last month, actually, and is effective may 4th. so, we have a finalized m.o.u. i see on the report about 6.20, 8.11 and 8.12, the actual m.o.u. basical basically talks about what everybody's responsibilities are. district attorney is the lead on the investigation. administrative investigation process will not change, and the m.o.u. clearly defines what everybody's responsibilities
are. so, in principal, when it comes time to revise the d.g.o.s, the basic principles remain unchanged. duties of the m.o.u. will change. but the basic principles and parties will not change. so, that's where we are. i know that was a topic of interest that was mentioned, i think by one of the commissioners a couple months ago as far as a status update. we are happy we have reached an agreement and gone through the process through the d.h.r. process with the p.o.a., and we have an agreement. that is it for the chief's report. >> for this portion of the report. we have a presentation recording behavioral science unit requested by commissioner taylor and after we take questions we'll do that portion. >> ok. all right. vice president taylor. >> i was just a little bit
confused and probably looked up the way most people did when you talked about the two types of discharge without serious bodily injuries and with serious bodily injuries or death and to the extent it's been plotted out, can we talk more about that? one committee dealing with -- >> it's one committee. it's just like use of force, if you have a use of force that results in even before this process, that results in serious bodily injury or death, it's a more robust investigation and more robust process in terms of the reviews, in terms of the investigation protocols and those type of things. this process is what we are intending to do is call that out. if it's a taser used, there's no injury, no incident, that will be reviewed but it's a different level of review when it involves
serious bodily injury and/or death. so, that's why we want to tier it, have two tiers that we can separate those and put priority on the ones where you need to, more detail. >> when you say different level of review, do you have any sense now what that means in terms of how the review will be conducted, kind of the guardrails placed around incidents involving serious bodily injury? >> it does not surplant the investigation. serious bodily injury as defined what it is, and as defined by the d.g.o., it's going to trigger a call out and immediate investigation as opposed to a use of force where there is a sprain, which is a different level. that's going to be investigated at the supervisory level. that has not changed. this board will not investigate
the incident. this board will review the investigation for policy, training, tactics, concerns that can be addressed and with recommendations made for improvement or, and/or policy changes if any of those are noted. board does not do the actual investigation. >> the whole purpose is, when we went through this work group process, there was a lot of discussion and debate about the need to really have an understanding of e.c.w., impact, how we are use being them, what we can do right, better, and lessons learned as we evolve in the process. so, that's really the job of this board. it's not to investigation, it's to actually take those investigations and go through them and make recommendations so we can always be on the forefront of being the best we can be in terms of the use of this. >> and will there be conclusions? just trying to get a better sense of what the board will ultimately do. will there be conclusions in
terms of whether, you know, actions are in policy, out of policy, recommendations for discipline. >> knots from this board. use of force where serious bodily j ir or death occurs, that process will -- there will be a recommendation after that investigation whether it's the policy or not. this board will take that investigation and basically dissect it, so basically an biopsy of the use of this weapon to try to determine if there are any issues that need to be addressed as far as policy training, tactics, that type of thing. a lot of that will be disclosed during the actual investigation itself. this board will then put a second set of eyes on it for recommendation. >> wondering as a commission how if at all what the board does could be helpful for us in assessing disciplinary actions,
you know, the efficacy of the e.c.w., whether they are a good idea moving forward. i'm trying to get a better sense of the role of the board and how, and whether it would be something the commission could get information from. >> it's -- it's where in in the policy, the board is written in the actual d.g.o., commissioners, and the intent and the spirit behind it was really to make sure that we are being as thorough as possible. but the implementation of this new weapon, and i think extra measures of caution were taken to make sure we looked at every conceiveable thing to make sure we are doing it the right way and as much as possible it's a safe rollout and we use it
appropriately and that there there are lessons or improvements to be made, that they be, they be dealt with right away, and handled right away. that was a purpose of the board. the board is actually written into the d.g.o. so, it's not meant to circumvent or replace the actual use of force review process. i mean, this is not a board that will remedies president clinton or anything like that. it's really a review to dissect and do a biopsy on the actual case and the investigation. so -- >> commissioner dejesus. >> my notes were a little skimpy, hard to keep up with you. infrastructure for the devices how they are going to be the data portal, the batteries, how they are in the stations, i understand that. i'm a little confused. you said the team was working with the policy, went through the commission, adopting a draft to go through the working group and i got to ask you, i thought
there was not an active working group for tassers but maybe i'm wrong. when you say the working group, you mean the command staff or working group we had before on tasers. >> from the starts, going through the process, working the policy, we worked with community stakeholders, d.p.a., on the review board process. and that, before is finalized has to continue, written into our new d.p.a. agreement is that before we roll something like this out, that we will discuss it with not only d. p. a., but in this case a lot of input from members of the public on this. so, before we finalize this, of course with he want to make sure we are delivering on what we said we would do. >> working group like before,
the bar association and other people were part of that group? >> that was the process of how this got in the policy in the first place through that group. >> when you say community input besides the d.p.a. >> we drafted the -- we drafted the plan, and before this getting finalized, of course we will have a discussion with d.p.a. and whoever else that we need to have the discussion to finalize this. >> i don't want to leave it to whoever else, talk about the community input and the group, whether it's going to be the same type of working group we had before or not. i think we need to know that. you sit together and then the community comes and they are upset they are not inclusive. we as a commission should talk about that. >> i understand. i understand. so, the whole purpose of this is to continue the process that we started to even get to where we are now.
so, that was a very long process with a lot of input. and a lot of direction. we took that direction and now we have a plan on paper and so we will -- >> take it back, that's good. we'll talk about that, and i'm sure the president -- we'll all talk about it, the same group or something similar. but the e.c.w. review board, what i hear you saying is pretty much a separate firearm discharge review board that the command staff, the department puts together with the training department, with the components that normally sit, similar with the firearm discharge review board. you let d.p.a. and a commissioner sit there, but we have no -- we have not been asked questions, but cannot make a decision. i'm wondering, structured in a similar format? >> i'm going to go -- >> to go over tactics. >> back to the policy, commissioners, give me one second here.
>> maybe next time we have a presentation, we can be given a copy of the d.g.o., so we can also can look at it. we don't have it available. >> at the meeting, that would be nice. >> the major ones. >> chief, that's okay. d.g.o. we have to go back to, we'll go back to it. here is where i'm going with this. when we were doing the, the department of justice was here,
there was a lot of panels on the department of justice, talking about the different ways octuplet cities had tasers and went about it, and a review board with the community present and i think the one in houston, the community not only sat on the, whenever there was a discharge of it, they sat in on the analysis, they listened to the investigation, and i think in houston they recommended discipline or what to go forward. i'm just wondering, getting a little confused. internal command e.c.w. review board to look at the investigation, tactics, training or things that need to be corrected. i see similar to what the discharge review of the firearm discharge review board does. are you also talking about having a subcommittee that would have, or include civilians or community members on taser discharge. i'm trying to get, and since i don't have what you have, trying to get a better idea what we are talking about. >> yes, so, the ultimate goal is
to institute the serious incident review board which will be what you just described. that's the ultimate goal. as we got through the taser d.g.o. and written into the, this policy was the stand alone review board for the taser, controlled weapon. electronic controlled weapon. ultimately, yes. the serious incident review board, once we get to that point, will do exactly what you just described. we are not at the point where we have a civilian, have not worked in that yet. we have discussed that, and we have consulted with the city attorney on what the requirements to actually have that type of involvement, but we are not there yet. but this board is the first
phase of what the longer process that will roll into the serious incident review board to do all the things you just described, but we are not there yet. >> and the last thing, you are talking about two members of the s.f.p.d. attending the master training and then trained and additional ten. you are talking, it's a very small compared to the force, 1200, 1300. is everybody getting a taser, is it going to be the whole force, is that enough for the whole force? >> as it stands right now, and the way the policy is written, only those that have been trained with both the 40 hour c.i.t. and the 20 hour, use of force and the field tactics training will even be eligible. that's about half the department. of that half, not all of those individuals were in patrol, so under the best scenario, if we were to roll it out to everybody that's in training would be half the department. don't plan to it all at once. it will be phased in.
the plan is phase it in, and funding has a lot to do with that as well. >> i understand you finalizing the policy. next time we can have something in writing, but you were going too fast for me to take notes. >> no worries. and intended to be a status update. you asked for a status update. a lot is still in process so it's hard to give you a final project when it's still in process. >> appreciate that. i want to talk about the o.i.s., m.o.u., officer-involved shooting with the district attorney. when we first got word that was going to happen, we asked a lot of questions. i'm just, and we were told we were in process and i have seen the interview where he said it was dragging on and a long time. so, i guess -- i didn't realize it was signed. i was hoping we would be able to see the m.o.u. before it was signed, since it was something we were all interested in and something like two years, if not longer. so i'm, i'm disappointed we were
not able to see it before it was signed. i would like to see a signed cop and maybe put it on the agenda to at least look at it to see what's going on there. and especially since the confer process, maybe some dialogue whether you anticipate. >> it's already gone to be conferred. >> maybe as a commission we should at least see it and get an understanding from what you or the city attorney whether we anticipate any difficulty or problems in the meet and confer process. i think something like that is so important, it should have been on the agenda for the commission, at least a head's up it was about to be signed. i'm disappointed we didn't see it, i think we should see it, it's our duty and i'm very interested to see what the d.p.a. roll is in that. i think they are supposed to participate as well. it's not separate because the police -- the problem we need
the m.o.u. police does the investigation but the d.p.a. and the d.a. will be there, i'm not sure who is leading it, but my understanding, still the police department cordoning off the area, tracking down witness reports, photographs, still the department. you have to believe the other two didn't have the resources. >> all the responsibilities are laid out in the m.o.u. in terms of the lead -- district will lead the criminal investigation. administrative investigation of the department will still have administrative investigation, and the department of police accountability will do their independent investigation. >> man power for the administrative investigation, my understanding, heavily with the department. i guess i don't know -- >> still rest with the department. we have to do our own administrative investigation.
criminal investigation, district attorney lee. >> he criticized that. he thought the police should not be investigating the police and he feels, he felt, in the interview he felt sorry he took it over, he didn't have the resources to do the full independent investigation. still basically the department in the investigation. >> district attorney for two years sat in every one of these negotiations or somebody from the district attorney's office, so this is a joint collaborative agreement between the district attorney and the san francisco police department. >> point out where the deficit still is, still an issue about whether it's truly independent. that's all i'm saying, and we would have had more information if we could have seen it. i want to put it on the agenda as soon as i can. >> i think, chief, we have a standing request to see all the major m.o.u.s. the request had been made a while ago. and we have not gotten those yet, and i think we still have tho request down there.
>> part of the d.g.o., 2.04, a list of all the m.o.u.s we had to go through over 300 documents to determine what was still active and whatnot. so we do have that narrowed down to all the active m.o.u.s and will shortly be prepared to give that to the commission. >> i think we want to focus on the key ones, and that's probably up to your discretion in part, but this certainly would fall in that category. >> the f.b.i. wanted the key one -- >> may be hundreds. let's not have a back and forth. commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. so, i'm going to follow up on a few questions asked by other commissioners. the e.c.w. review board, is that something where we are going to have an opportunity to have a
commissioner sit on the board? >> the review board -- >> serious incident, that's in place, but i know that even well before my time and for many years tasers have been a very big issue and important issue, and heard from the commissioners who have been on during the taser meetings that there's been a lot of concern, and so i think in the oversight capacity we should have a rotating member of the commission on the review board. since it only meets quarterly, seems like a manageable load for seven of us. >> i'm reading the d.g.o., and it provides for two members of the police commission to be on an advisory capacity. e.c.w. review board composed of, just reading, two members of the police commission advisory, deputy chief of the
administration bureau, deputy chief of the airport bureau, deputy chief of the field operations bureau, and professional standards bureau, deputy chief of the special operations, commanding officer of the training division, commanding officer of risk management. director of police accountability and others. >> and also -- ok. well, it's wonderful when we actually read our own d.g.o.s. thank you, commissioner taylor. so it sounds like in place a capacity for this. is that accurate? >> yes, sir. and so go back to what i said earlier, this was a lot of work went into this, and a lot of input went into this, and it's spelled out in the d.g.o. in terms of the structure. we were tasked with building it out and putting it on paper from this point forward. >> and may be in the d.g.o. as
well, apologize for not reading it, i did previously but a long time ago. is there a structure in place for quarterly reporting on, from the e.c.w. review board? >> so, that -- there was a question asked about the committee. one of the things that we have put forth is the commission will be able to look at these on a monthly basis. i mean, you have to manage the work. we don't know what is anticipated, i don't anticipate, you know, thousands of these discharges or anything like that. but the committee basically will be a subset of the review board. the committee will do it on a monthly basis. >> i'm sorry, i don't think i made my question clear. i meant, are they going to be reporting to the commission? >> as far as the reports? >> yes, coming out of -- i saw, my understanding, it will go
through the committee, go to the board and come to the commission, quarterly basis? >> ultimately reports to the commission, yes. >> and the third issue was the one that commissioner taylor raised, which is you know, i think with tasers, i guess i would have questions classifying to serious injuries and nonserious injuries. because you know, and again, i'll say i'm not as well versed as some of the other commissioners on the commission for many years maybe about the use of tasers. to my understanding, every use of a taser can be lethal. so, as a lethal weapon, say somebody uses it and they miss and using it in a wreckless or dangerous fashion that could cause loss of life. i don't want to see just because
they happen to have bad aim, the problematic uses of tasers not being given the proper focus. how do we address that? and separating them like that, that is focussed on the end, focussed on the result as opposed to the action itself. >> they all will be reviewed. all will be reviewed. i'll use this analogy. think of it, let's say we have a shots fired incident where somebody is shot at, it's a very serious crime. but if a person shot and now you have a homicide, you are going to commit a separate, a different level, a higher level of resources to the homicide. it's really the same line of thinking. they all will be reviewed, all investigated, but if you have a serious injury or death, it
rises to a different level. >> like attempted murder versus murder. >> priority of work. >> somebody being hurt or killed, it will take that to a different level of review. like the example i gave with the shooting. we investigate all shootings but when you have the homicide, different protocol. it brings it to a different level of urgency. >> ok. i just -- i don't want us to be missing where potentially there is opportunities to learn and training and use, if devices are going to be used. >> understood. we don't intend to. we are looking at all of them. but again, prioritizing the work and really you do have to set priorities, particularly
somebody is injured, somebody is hurt, rises to a different level. >> and d.g.o. it was laid out in pretty great detail the various things they consider. it's a long list. >> so we all know, 5.02, and a, appendix a, it's on the website, it's available to the public, available to the commissioners. >> when we put things on the agenda, it's great, that's what i read in preparation for the meeting. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you. so my question, chief, is why we weren't given a copy of the m.o.u. before it was signed, especially when the m.o.u. is going to affect 1, 2, 3, 4 different d.g.o.s and one of our tasks is to redo the d.g.o.s and make sure the policies and procedures of the police department are sort of followed and so i guess my concern is
along the lines of commissioner dejesus, why we were not given a head's up on the m.o.u., which is very important. >> commissioner, respectfully, the day-to-day operations of the police department which, right now m.o.u.s, the chief of police or the department head is given the authority to execute m.o.u.s, it's in the day-to-day authority of the chief of police. this m.o.u. has been asked about, discussed with this commission for almost two and a half years i've been here. so, there is nothing hidden, secret or anything like that. we were asked for a status update. we have been going through the process now for two and a half years. i'm not saying that, commissioner. what i'm saying is as the chief of police, i have to be given the authority to run the
operations of the department and if the commission wishes to run the day-to-day operations of the department, you know, i think that's -- you know -- no, commissioner, i have to be given the authority to run the department. and this m.o.u., have no problem bringing it to the commission, making it public, it's not an issue. but in terms of the authority to sign m.o.u.s, we have a lot of m.o.u.s, a lot of agreements, and it has not been a requirement to bring each of those m.o.u.s before the commission to get approval before i sign and now that changes -- >> and i understand that part, chief. i agree with you. there's a lot on your plate and there's a lot of decisions you have to make on a daily basis to keep this department running and i think you are doing a great job. my concern is that this m.o.u. is a little different than sort of any regular day-to-day m.o.u. this involves four different
d.g.os and you know, we are in the process of redoing a lot of the d.g.o.s for the department that have not been done since the 1990s, and we are trying to adhere to the d.o.j. recommendations that says our policies and procedures are outdated. with this m.o.u. i think it's a little different and should have been treated a little different, it's not an m.o.u. that does not affect the whole purpose of why we are here and one of the things we are trying to accomplish. i guess that's my issue. it's not, and i don't -- i think, i agree with you, the day-to-day m.o.u.s or the operations of the police department does fall on your lap and there's no issue there. our concern is the fact that this, you know, again, relates to various d.g.o.s and they are not sort of like what does the officer wear to work or uniform requirement. these are d.g.o.s that affect the public in a very serious way
as well as the officers. >> yes. and so d.g.o.s, for instance, 3.10, firearm discharge, or 8.11 investigations of officers-involved shootings, 8.11 currently spells out that the district attorney and the san francisco police department will investigate officer-involved shootings. that has not changed. what's changed is the delineation of the duties. it spells out who does what. >> and as a result, the d.g.o.s will change because of the m.o.u. >> some will change in terms of the names of, because we had to make some internal changes in terms of who gets called out and on what.
but fundamentally what i'm saying, none of this, commissioner, is a surprise or shouldn't be. two and a half years in the making and a very public topic. so, i understand the commission wishes to direct the department to bring m.o.u.s before signature and that's what the commission votes to do, we'll do it. but as of now, the protocol has been that the day-to-day operations of the police department, the chief of police has the authority to make those decisions. >> i think what i'm hearing, though, there is an issue about policy and issue about operations. and if it bleeds over into policy, i think the commission is entitled to weigh in and should. if it's operations, then we are really not involved in your operations but until we actually see what was done, we won't know. i think we need to look at it and then we need to think about
whether we feel it affected enough policy we should be involved. that's our role. policy is our role, operations is your job. >> and i want to be clear. i did ask for the m.o.u. several months ago and was told by your command staff that i couldn't have it or it was not available. so, you know, i don't -- i have not seen it. so, i have asked before. >> we just finished the meet and confer process about a month ago. yeah. signed it, but it was going through the meet and confer process with the p.o.a. and through d.h.r. >> okay. i would like to move on to the next commissioner. thank you. commissioner brookter. >> two clarifying questions to close the loop around e.c.w., the first being, none of what was stated is set in stone. so this is a work in progress and update on the status. >> yes. >> lastly, so, with that, i
wanted to also go back to commissioner dejesus's point there was previously a working group that was active so currently is not an active working group now. >> there has not been a working group to do the internal things that we have done, no. all the work that we have done, let me ask you a question first. no, there was not a working group that sat down with us to get things that i just described for the commission. the direction on what was done was based on that work from the working group. everything that was laid out about how the serious incident review board would be constructed, what the intent of it was, that was the product of a working group. the department then took that and came up with what i just described, all the things i just described. >> in the future, we will reconvene the working group. >> before this is finalized,
yes. >> commissioner dejesus. >> so i don't want to beat a dead horse but have to say, department of justice talked about independent of investigation and the blue ribbon panel did and other commissions and the d.a. said he would offer a whole separate committee and get funding. i asked over and over where we are with the m.o.u. for numerous times and as a matter of fact i recall this commission insisting the d.p.a. be at the table initially they were not at the table when you were doing the m.o.u. and they also play a role in this investigation. and also hearing that is even alter d.g.o. when it affects policy it should be brought to our attention. it's something we were interested in, and yeah, the last six months we might not have brought it to the table but it's as important as the f.b.i.
m. o.u., certain ones when they affect policy they should be here. i just wanted -- >> vice president taylor. >> hi, chief. i don't want to belabor the past anymore, but would, if the commission could get a copy of the m.o.u., that would be helpful. >> yes. >> ok. thank you. moving on to the next agenda item. >> good evening, chief. >> good morning. president hirsch, vice president taylor, members of the commission. director henderson, chief scott, members of the public. deputy chief bob mowser and i'm here to introduce our next presentation on our behavioral science unit programs and resources. tonight you are going to hear
about some of the functions of the behavioral science unit. much of what they do on a daily basis really goes unnoticed because they are working directly with the men and women of the san francisco police department and their families. i believe you are going to find that after tonight's presentation you are going to see that what the b.s.u. does on a daily basis for members of the department is a crucial function and often goes unnoticed. i would like to take this moment to publicly acknowledge that. with that, i would like to introduce the members of our team that are here tonight. i'm joined by sergeant mara pengal, sergeant art howard, and in the audience, officer dennis ro rodalis and chaplain megan roar. sergeant howard and pengal for
tonight's presentation. >> good evening to you two. >> good evening. >> we'll put the presentation up. i want to give history about b.s.u. and how it started. we are a unit that provides and coordinates psychological support and education to all sworn and civilian members of the department. we provide crisis intervention, peer training, and we have referrals to licensed psychologists. this unit was created in the 1970s by one of our lieutenants, al benner, and for the use of crisis and trauma on the job and personal stressors. so, with all that we are presenting to you today, they provide and support education to our members throughout the law enforcement career. we follow the officers from entrance into the department -- into the department, beginning with the recruitment orientation
and family nights and resiliency training. we do continuous professional training and addressing post traumatic stress, suicide, substance abuse and addiction, briefings, psychologists and emotional well-being, and continuing support even with our retirees. our b.s.u. model is based on peers and it was in 2007 it was the national model by the perf, and it was noticed as a best practice. we work closely as you will see with our command staff and our chain in command to make sure our officers get as much help as they can through their trauma and crisis. as you can see, this is the confidential assistance program. broken down in a few services that we have. we have our peer support team, critical incident response team,
the catastrophic illness program, the psychologists professionals, m.h.n. police and community chaplains, stress unit and the west coast post trauma retreat, run by the first responders support network. and as you can see, our records and all units, we do not keep notes, everything that is presented to us at b.s.u. is confidential. and as i said before, it's with our chain of command is very supportive and we can go to them regarding any issues. so our peer support, they are trained, 24-hour class postman dated, and we have about 300 peer support members right now, and they are trained inactive listening, problem solving assessments, and peer mentoring. and we provide three classes three times a year.
up to 42 members on four different teams that are on call for all critical incidents in the city. we have up to 7 to 10 members that can be called to help out members in crisis regarding officer-involved shootings, sids deaths, and any calls supervisors feel has impacted the officers. catastrophic illness program, i don't know if you are familiar with, is run by the city and county of san francisco through the department of public health. we have numerous officers that are in the catastrophic illness program. they apply for that through the city, and all officers then donate time to them so they can stay home and deal with issues that they have. there is also a component to the catastrophic illness to family members also, and we facilitate that.
>> good evening, i'm going to talk about our psych pros. we have a contract that is outside of our blue shield. our officers have access to e.a.p. mental health. we have had it for a long time, it's quite successful. and really, the meat and potatoes of what we do as a unit. every two years our officers come up to the academy to get their, part of their a.o. training, 40 hours. we get them for two hours to remind them the unit exists, we talk about the different themes of ptsd, suicide, and the theme right now is resiliency. but we are trying to pitch the mental health check, our core message, to tell our officers to get a mental health professional in their corner before they need one. see one when they are normal so whether they are abnormal they can tell the difference. and our officers are peace officers, crisis therapists and our job is solve something, so we have a lot of trouble asking
for help and the unit is available 24/7 to take questions from officers when they start in mid career and say i need help, and so our job is to sort of triage them and the right level of care and the big part is using this mental health benefit. eight visits per critical incident and each of the family members do, and we work with the family to get them, our attitude, we are helping an officer with a family member, helping them get back to work, so they are not worrying about the family members. and also a 24-hour crisis line. if the officers don't want to call the unit, they can call directly and talk to a therapist, unlimited web counseling. so, officers in the hospital or family member in the hospital, access to counseling and childcare and financial and legal advice. so, it's a great benefit. we had a utilization rate when i came to the unit, nine years